Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[Varqm]

And stories/rumors abound...


Echo
London, U.K.
10 November 1888

There was, of course, a crowd before the entrance to McCarthy's-court - or as it is popularly known, Miller's-court - in which stands the house where
the unfortunate woman was murdered. The body had been taken away in the afternoon to the mortuary, which is attaining the celebrity almost of the Paris
Morgue; but the crowd still hung opposite the entrance to the court discussing the murder. Over the way, the occupants of the Commercial-street-chambers
were looking out upon the crowd, their noses glued to the window panes.

[Sam Flynn]

Highly unlikely.The police did a house-to-house search

I don't think it at all unlikely that a dosser would have nipped out for a breath of fresh air by standing outside the entrance to his lodging-house.

Besides, perhaps they did find him during the house-to-house search. If he hadn't reported seeing anything of note, then it wouldn't be surprising if we hadn't heard anything about him. After all, there were other protagonists in the case (e.g. the men tending to their horses in Hanbury Street, Pipe Man in Berner Street) about whom we hear nothing more at all.

[Varqm]

There was a large lodging-house directly opposite the entrance to Miller's Court, so it's not inconceivable that the man seen by Lewis was one of the lodgers, or perhaps a member of staff, who'd nipped outside for a breath of air.

Highly unlikely.The police did a house-to-house search,that's how they come upon Mary Cusins(?) and story of Joseph Isaacs.And at least
one reporter went to dorset st.,Echo London, U.K 10 November 1888 IN A DORSET-STREET "DOSS-HOUSE"(which was kind of similar to Hutch's
story -time and giving money).More likely the lodger's story/rumors would come out.

---

It's hard to discuss with some posters, whose logic is off,Kennedy and Lewis not the same,even an 16 year old would know they were.

[Wickerman]

By the by, it is pure speculation that the Canonical Group were all murdered by a single individual nicknamed Jack the Ripper....so you and oh so many others live in the same glass house I do. The only difference is that your belief has been tested for over 125 years and still remains unproven. Mine hasn't been vetted by anything more than modern opinions.

Absolutely, there are many issues in this case that can only be addressed by modern assumptions. We need to assume when there are no clear indications to guide us. This is not the case with this "discredited" nonsense.
The Star themselves contradict their own story of the previous day, plus we have a different newspaper confirming that contradiction.

Why would you support the claim by the Star, on the 15th, when they contradict their own story on the 16th?

[Wickerman]

I think discarding a primary source of the time altogether based on some predjudiced opinion of their integrity isn't wise, but that's your choice.

But I'm not discarding it, thats the point, it was already discarded.
It's just yourself and a handful of others who turn a blind eye to the fact.

The claim by the Star was already redundant by their own reporters the very next day when they reported the Galloway sighting and the response that the constable was "looking for a man of a very different appearance". Very Different to Blotchy - Astrachan, he was the only other prime suspect.

Michael, answer this question - how can the Star write on the 15th that Hutchinson's story is discredited, then on the 16th write that a Met. constable is looking for the Hutchinson suspect?
Hutchinson cannot be dismissed as a viable witness, and accepted as a viable witness, at the same time.

And, just to rub it in, on the 19th, the Echo report the police are equally interested in both suspects - Blotchy & Astrachan.
This isn't me rejecting a viable source (the Star), the source was not trustworthy by their own admission, and the claim by the Star was superseded by the Echo four days later.

I'm the one who is following the evidence, as it transpires, in sequence, whereas you are the one who is rejecting later sources.
Why is that Michael?

As to the "plan", surely you're not taking another indefensible position that he decided spontaneously at 4pm Monday to come forward? Had the encounter and sighting been authentic he surely would have been planning on coming forward at some point...in this case, just not early enough to be of any value to the investigation.

We have Hutchinson's own words that a fellow lodger talked him in to coming forward, so he doesn't say he suddenly decided to go to police himself.

[Michael W Richards]

By the by, it is pure speculation that the Canonical Group were all murdered by a single individual nicknamed Jack the Ripper....so you and oh so many others live in the same glass house I do. The only difference is that your belief has been tested for over 125 years and still remains unproven. Mine hasn't been vetted by anything more than modern opinions.

[Michael W Richards]

What 'plan' is this?
Or, is this more speculation?

I think discarding a primary source of the time altogether based on some predjudiced opinion of their integrity isn't wise, but that's your choice. As to the "plan", surely youre not taking another indefensible position that he decided spontaneously at 4pm Monday to come forward? Had the encounter and sighting been authentic he surely would have been planning on coming forward at some point...in this case, just not early enough to be of any value to the investigation.

[Wickerman]

If they disbelieved any component of his story...in particular the lavishly detailed suspect description, then the Star article would be valid.

Like I've already explained. There are no half measures in a discredited story, it's either all or nothing. Had they said the story was "partly discredited" then your point would be true, but they didn't. So moving the goal posts in defense of your own theory is another indication of desperation to salvage an argument.

People like yourself trash the Star at any opportunity,..

People better qualified than myself have trashed the Star, because unlike you, they have actually researched the 19th century press and know all about the politics of how this newspaper came into being, and what the agenda of their chief Editor, the Irish Nationalist, T. P. O'Connor was.
He had also been a journalist for the Pall Mall Gazette, another controversial newspaper of the time.
Controversy gets attention and attention sells copy. Truth doesn't always put food on the table.

.....but it was following this story as eagerly as The Times and was more likely to publish stories that could not be validated by secondary sources. They, unlike most of the rest, didn't just rely on Central News.

The Star being an evening paper often lifted their evening stories from the dailies, like Telegraph, or the Times. So don't be deceived if you read the Star covering the same story as the Times, check the wording verbatim, in both versions. The Star have copied Times articles, which doesn't mean they have "eagerly" pursued the story, just copied it.

I think most everyone can see that there was an agenda with his coming forward, after all it had been planned for over 4 days.

What 'plan' is this?
Or, is this more speculation?

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, I do remember you making that point to Ben more than once.
We have to remember though, the press didn't know the details of the investigation. Then there is the fact that we read of the continued interest by police in the Hutchinson suspect over the next several days, from this it is apparent that Hutchinson's story as a whole was still believed.
So either way you look at it the claim by the Star was false. If they had meant that only part of his story was deficient, then we might be able to give them the benefit of the doubt, as we are in no position to question the entire report.

If they disbelieved any component of his story...in particular the lavishly detailed suspect description, then the Star article would be valid. People like yourself trash the Star at any opportunity, but it was following this story as eagerly as The Times and was more likely to publish stories that could not be validated by secondary sources. They, unlike most of the rest, didn't just rely on Central News.

I think most everyone can see that there was an agenda with his coming forward, after all it had been planned for over 4 days.

[Wickerman]

Note that the Star article says that the STORY was discredited (possibly meaning "disbelieved") , not that Hutchinson himself had been found wanting as a witness. It's an important distinction, which I was at pains to point out to Ben, amongst other Hutch-as-Ripper enthusiasts.

Yes, I do remember you making that point to Ben more than once.
We have to remember though, the press didn't know the details of the investigation. Then there is the fact that we read of the continued interest by police in the Hutchinson suspect over the next several days, from this it is apparent that Hutchinson's story as a whole was still believed.
So either way you look at it the claim by the Star was false. If they had meant that only part of his story was deficient, then we might be able to give them the benefit of the doubt, as we are in no position to question the entire report.

[Michael W Richards]

IOW, George had no clue that his statement was going to make the evening news or get him an interview with Abberline. He probably didn't know where his info was going to fit in with the police investigation; it just so happened the police attached some importance to his statement and forwarded it up the chain, making his name forever more part of Ripperology.

[/I]

Hi Robert,

I differ with that opinion. I think George Hutchinson had access to all the information publically available to him as early as Saturday morning, and knew well that a Blotchy faced person was the last seen with Mary Kelly. That is by witnesses who resided in that court on that night.

I think his statement was purposefully given, but not to aid the investigation. It was to misdirect it. Wideawake Man was the most pertinent fact that went into the decision for the pardon offer, imho. This character was seen by the police as someone who likely had ties with the goings on in the courtyard. To step into those shoes figuratively is a daunting proposition, so one would think that it must have been an important reason for him to do it. The notion it was to help find the killer of a friend is again, dispensed with, based on the delay.

I believe it was to diffuse the suspicions about Wideawake, I don't think that person wanted to be exposed to scrutiny.

As an aside, Ive often wondered just what in the fireplace ashes might remain hidden through 1 sieving, and require a second one Saturday morning by no less than Abberline Himself, I believe Reid, and a few others that reported to Abberline from close quarters. Might it be related to this Wideawake character? Could the thing in the ashes be tiny fragments of stamps?

[Sam Flynn]

[Note: Personally, I suspect the Star used this prior report by the Echo to speculate that Hutchinson must have been discredited

Note that the Star article says that the STORY was discredited (possibly meaning "disbelieved") , not that Hutchinson himself had been found wanting as a witness. It's an important distinction, which I was at pains to point out to Ben, amongst other Hutch-as-Ripper enthusiasts.

[Wickerman]

I guess anytime we have conflicting press reports I have questions. lol

So you are saying it would be a man with an astrakhan coat seen in Battersea and Queen Victoria Street and not the blotchy faced man, correct? I don't know either way. I was thinking the other way around, but now I'm not sure.

Hi Jerry.

Official descriptions issued by the police are very brief and to the point. Here are a few from the Double-event:

"At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.

At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

"Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.W.

"At 1.35 a.m., 30th Sept., with Catherine Eddows, in Church-passage, leading to Mitre-square, where she was found murdered at 1.45 a.m., same date, a man, age 30, height 5ft 7 or 8in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap, with peak of the same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor.

"Information respecting this man to be forwarded to Inspector M'William, 26, Old Jewry, London, E.C."



The official description of Hutchinson's suspect published on the 13th Nov. is presented in the same fashion.

He was about 5 ft. 6 in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long, dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with a black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain.

The Cox suspect - Blotchy, never received the same attention.

[Wickerman]

Hi Robert.

Ok, now I see where you were coming from.
It would appear to be an error in their choice of wording in the article from the 19th.
As to the subsequent points you make, it may be well to mention the Echo also claimed the two forces (City & Met) were following two different suspects.

Here, on the 13th, they wrote:

(Ref: a 'shabby-genteel' looking man with a 'sandy' moustache)
"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."
Echo, 13 Nov.

[Note: Personally, I suspect the Star used this prior report by the Echo to speculate that Hutchinson must have been discredited for the Met to have been "induced" to attach more significance to the Cox suspect.
This is the reason, in my opinion, why the Star give no reason for their "discredited" story which they published the next day.
They obtained irinformation from a written source (the Echo), not a direct source in person (the police), where they could ask questions.
The Met police were not talking to the Star reporters, these reporters were complaining in print on that very point. And, when comparing some articles from the Star we can see they robbed them from other newspapers]

I was focusing in on the "declared... at the inquest" part of the report/sentence. Could only think of Mary Ann... no wait... sorry... just hit me... they use the word "witnesses" in that sentence. The Star must be talking about Mrs. Cox and Mrs. Maxwell, and letting 11:45p slide for "early morning". Really, who else from the inquest is left who matches the criteria?

I saw the press reports that have some police chasing this guy while others chase that guy, mystery within a mystery. "Police" can be a banner term too often; maybe it was a divisional thing.

The tone in some newspapers downplay the value of Hutchinson's description to the police, as though it already matched the police's general composite. I'm wondering if they were more interested in his statement because they were working off a 3-to-4 am time of death

[jerryd]

Hello Jerry.

I have been going through the BNA to see what the earliest newspapers reported on that account.
It appears the wording in the earliest accounts say, "who answered the published description of the man wanted for the murder, etc".

Blotchy's description was never published as the wanted man. The description of the Hutchinson suspect was widely published on the morning of the 13th.
So it would appear the Echo inserted the wrong details in their account of the same story.

Do you have any thoughts on your question?

I guess anytime we have conflicting press reports I have questions. lol

So you are saying it would be a man with an astrakhan coat seen in Battersea and Queen Victoria Street and not the blotchy faced man, correct? I don't know either way. I was thinking the other way around, but now I'm not sure.